Christina Schwaller

4 August, 2010

No Minor Feat: Reflections on the Cognitive Science Minor

After a long absence, I returned to Truman State University in the spring of 2007, this

time as a linguistics major. That semester, I took a course on cognitive psychology, and it

fascinated me. I began to take courses toward a psychology minor, which I would fulfill by

taking as many cognition-related courses as possible. Shortly thereafter, the cognitive science

interdisciplinary minor was introduced, and I was thrilled. I have now completed both my

linguistics major requirements and my cognitive science courses, and I know that these areas of

study have together enriched my knowledge and helped to prepare me for graduate school. The

minor in cognitive science requires that students take courses in at least three of the following

categories: computational cognition, language and cognition, philosophy of cognition, and

psychology of cognition. Most of my coursework was in the language and psychology areas, but

I feel that the courses I took also informed me a great deal on the computational and

philosophical approaches to cognitive science.

Computational Cognition

Computational cognition is the study of the computational foundation through which

learning and inference occur in the brain. Through such study, one seeks to understand the basis

behind the processing of information by means of mathematical modeling, computer simulation,

and behavioral experiments. Almost every course in the Cognitive Science minor utilizes

computational cognition to some degree. For instance, Phonetics and Phonology employs logical

formulas to state phonetic rules as they are believed to exist in the human mind.

Schwaller 2

PSYC 331 Cognitive Psychology

In Cognitive Psychology, I wrote a paper on Jeff Hawkinss book On Intelligence. His

model for a learning machine is centered on a theory that all of intelligence is acquired via a

memory-prediction framework acting in the neocortex. Hawkins insists that the plasticity of

neurons and Mountcastles theory of a universal algorithm are evidence enough that a model can

be built with silicon chips as soon as that algorithm is calculated. The cornerstones on which

Hawkins has built his theory are memory-prediction, parallel sequencing, and hierarchical

organization.

A team of researchers tested nerve firing in monkeys during motor tasks, and the results

seemed to suggest a high level of plasticity in certain certain neurons, as well as suggesting that a

memory-prediction process influences the firing of some neurons in motor tasks. The

experimenters found differences in firing patterns of inferior parietal lobule (IPL) neurons for the

same task depending on the intention associated with that task. The aspects affecting this were

found to be not from variation in the motor act (grasping), but variation of the future purpose that

act served. The connected future action intended had an effect on the brain activity during the

first action. Not only did the monkeys brains follow similar firing patterns when observing an

act, but they followed the same guidelines of intention. The neurons that discharge in both

performance and observation of an act are dubbed parietal mirror neurons (Fogassi 2005). In

order to fire in certain ways based on intention of observed acts, the circuitry of the brain must

incorporate a top-down prediction process. The experiments described here are, even on the

surface, evidential of a memory-prediction system that is present in perception (Fogassi, 2005).

The research supports Hawkinss idea of prediction as the source of various other

cognitive tasks. The theory that sensation and motor control are results of the same basic process

Schwaller 3

is both evidence and conclusion of the aforementioned universal prediction theory. Furthermore,

the similarities in brain activity for motor control and perception provide support for the theory

that cognitive processes are all built upon the same basic algorithm.

In these tests, subjects evaluated action words while motor areas in the left brain

(primarily used for language) were excited with the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation

(TMS). It was found that choice reaction time was shorter when a word related to the area of the

body to which the stimulated motor area was connected. The scientists performing this study

concluded that the linguistic analysis and sensorimotor systems of the brain are highly interactive

when there is a meaningful reason for such interaction (Pulvemller 2005).

Language and Cognition

Psycholinguistics deals with comprehension and production of language, specifically

focusing on how the mind organizes, stores, and processes language. It encompasses any subject

involving cognition and language. At first largely philosophical, psycholinguistics now studies

data from brain imaging and takes into account computational theories from other subdisciplines

of linguistics.

ENG 414 Language and the Mind

Language and the Mind deals with various topics of psycholinguistics. In this course, I

studied such topics as language processing, storage and access, comprehension theory,

neurobiology, and language deficits. Each of these informed my understanding of the possible

cognitive pathways and processes that make language possible for humans.

One of the steps toward an understanding of language cognition is discussion of the

structure of the language regions of the brain. This neuroscientific approach considers

Schwaller 4

hypotheses on the locations where particular linguistic processes occur. Methods for this include

various brain imaging technologies, study of individuals with brain damage to specific areas, and

comparison between human and animal brains. Through such methods, we can see that certain

language faculties are, in part, localized to particular regions of the brain. However, brain

imaging technologies have allowed us to see that each linguistic process involves more than just

one area of the brain. Although the left side of the brain is associated with interpretation of

symbols and analytic processing, the right side of the brain is also involved in language,

especially when perceptual and spatial representation are involved. Brocas and Wernickes

aphasias affect very specific parts of speech, suggesting that these factors are somewhat localized.

However, linguistic processes follow paths through various areas of the brain, so damage to

Brocas and Wernickes areas does not eliminate the language faculty.

Connectionist models of language processing assert that frequency of usage strengthens a

connection in the memory. If a neural pathway between two words is used frequently enough,

then one word will quickly facilitate access of the other. Connection strength explains why

frequently used words are the easiest to retrieve. It may also be the reason for collocation,

through which we retrieve certain words together.

The information processing approach emphasizes the complexity of language processing

by charting the flow of information through several steps. Sensation and perception allow

humans to see and recognize patterns, based on smaller characteristics of the stimulus, matching

the whole to a representation in the long-term memory, and assigning a category or identity to

the stimulus. Short-term or working memory holds the stimulus and, if necessary, passes it on to

the long-term memory. Surprisingly, linguists and psychologists believe that decoding of

perceived language actually involves construction of meaning and integration of new meaning

Schwaller 5

into what has already been decoded. Charting the levels of representation in language decoding

in this way largely relies on bottom-up processing, whereby the mind uses small units to

assemble larger ones. However, top-down processing also gives us the ability to recognize the

intended word when it is misspelled or mispronounced, as well as to guess the next word in a

sentence or parse the grammatical construction of an utterance before it is completed. The

interactive view of language processing suggests that processes may occur in both directions

simultaneously, or in parallel. Below is Levelts model of speaking. This model employs an

interactive approach in which decoding and encoding occur in parallel, utilizing both top-down

and bottom-up processes.

Schwaller 6

Levelts Model of Speaking

(Field 128)

Schwaller 7

LING 413 Advanced Linguistics (Semantics and Pragmatics)

In the Advanced Linguistics course on semantics and pragmatics, I worked on a study in

which I explored cognitive processes and mental organization of data at a specific level of

semantics. With a partner, I designed and performed an experiment on locative verbs. Locatives

are verbs that indicate transfer of content to or from a container. These verbs are puzzling in that

they take different syntactic construction for some reason that is not automatically decipherable.

Some always treat the content as the main argument (ex. fill the cup with water/ *fill water

into the cup). Others may only show the up in constructions where the container is linked to the

direct object (ex. poured paint onto the floor/ *poured the floor with paint). Some are

alternators, and can link either the content or the container to the grammatical direct object (ex.

loaded the gun with ammo/ loaded ammo into the gun).

Linguists have not yet discovered how the mind determines which syntactic constructions

these content-to-container verbs can take. Some existing research supported a theory that the

way locatives are categorized in the grammar can be predicted based on the nature of the specific

actions they describe. Non-alternating locatives can be classified into two groups: manner and

endstate. Manner locatives indicate movement of content. These locatives are specific about the

nature of the transfer, and how the container changes as a result is not their primary focus. These

locatives require content-based syntax, meaning that the content needs to be the indirect object,

and the container must be the direct object (ex. Tex pounded nails into the wall/ *Tex

pounded the wall with nails). Endstate verbs are the opposite case, in that they require

container-based constructions (ex. Bob filled the cup with water/ *Bob filled water into the

cup). Because there is no clear distinction between the primitive semantic features of these

locative verbs, scientists are not sure how children learn to categorize them in the mental lexicon.

Schwaller 8

In basic semantics, an object being moved in space is labeled as the patient or theme.

However, this is not the case when a verb links the ground or container entity to the grammatical

object. Some linguists theorize that verbs can or must take a container locative in situations

where the primary action describes a state-change of the ground or container as a result of

motion. If this is the case, the mind categorizes the stationary object as the main affected

argument and treats it as the grammatical argument.

The first linking theories were developed in the 1960s and 1970s and were built upon a

list-of-primitives structural model. Basic thematic roles (i.e., agent, theme, goal) were linked to

grammatical relations. Unfortunately, these theories overgeneralized linking patterns. In the

case of locative verbs, they did not allow for the semantic/syntactic correspondences displayed

by container-locative constructions (i.e., fill, as in fill the glass with water, in which glass is

both the ground entity and the direct object).

Recent linking theories have abandoned the list-of-primitives model for a more abstract

semantic structure technique. A verb is said to have a structured semantic representation that

makes explicit the agentive, causal, and temporal properties of the event (157). Semantic

structure theory uses more abstract primitives in defining meaning. This seems to decrease the

unpredictability of locative alternators and container-locatives. It can also reveal the tendency of

container-locative verbs and alternators to describe two events: a movement of the content

(figure) and a state-change of the container (ground). Whichever one is considered to be the

main argument determines the syntactic construction. If a verb describes how something moves,

it is also explaining that it moves. The same goes for change in endstate. With this process,

predictions can be made on which constructions a particular verb will accept.

Schwaller 9

For our literature review, we studied the methods and findings of previous experiments

involving locatives. In one study, three experiments were performed to assess speakers use of

verb meaning to predict syntax. In each experiment, children and adults were taught novel verbs

for a transfer of content to a container, and these actions were performed. The subjects were

asked to describe the actions using the new verbs in their own sentences. Depending on which

effect (motion of figure or state-change of ground) was made to appear more salient, the

participants hypothetically would move toward either a figure or ground argument. The results

all supported a theory that a manner of motion results in a mental representation of figure as

primary object, while a change in endstate of the stationary entity shifts the ground into the

position of main argument. There was also strong negating evidence for the assumption that the

mental lexicon has a content-locative-only rule for locative verbs with container-locatives

resulting from exceptions. The regularity in which container-locative constructions arose when

predicted by their semantic structure theory supports the idea that the ground-object construction

is the result of a gestalt shift of the endstate-effected verb to a position for manner-effected verbs.

To clarify the results of previous research, we redesigned one of the experiments from

our literature review. We felt that in order to reach any definite conclusions, more of the

variables needed to be made constant. We stabilized variables such as participant age, using only

adults age 18-23. We also allowed less variety in the testing materials, so that the different

characteristics of the materials would not affect results. Finally, we limited possible responses to

ranked multiple-choice answers, so that our results would be easily quantifiable.

For the figure or content entity, we used sponges. The first group of participants received

dry sponges, and the second group received sponges soaked in an acidic solution. The surface or

container entity was homemade pH test paper made from cabbage juice. Both groups were given

Schwaller 10

the same response sheet. The following answers appeared in four different random orders to

counterbalance any influence order might have on selection.

a. mooped the sponge

b. mooped the paper

c. mooped the sponge onto the paper

d. mooped the paper with the sponge

For the first subject group, a novel manner verb was presented for testing. A student

proctor passed out a small sponge, a piece of paper stained with cabbage juice, and an answer

sheet to each subject. She demonstrated by bouncing a sponge onto the paper, causing no state-

change to the paper, and said that the action was called mooping. Next, she asked all participants

to repeat the action. They were then directed to their answer sheet and asked to rank four

syntactic options in order of what they were most likely to say.

For group 2, participant reactions to a novel endstate verb were tested. The proctor passed

out a sheet of litmus paper, a sponge soaked in lemon juice, and an answer sheet to each

participant. She then demonstrated a process to be performed by the participants. This process

involved touching the sponge to the paper, which caused a change in the papers color. The

demonstrator described this action as mooping and prompted the participants to repeat the action.

Subjects then ranked the four options on the answer sheet, just like the previous section.

We hypothesized that the group performing a manner-based task would produce more

content-locative constructions, and the group performing an endstate task would produce more

container-locative constructions.

Mooped the paper and mooped the paper with the sponge are the container-based

locatives, while mooped the sponge and mooped the sponge to the paper are content-based.

Schwaller 11

By multiplying the number of responses in each ranking (1, 2, 3, 4) and finding the sum of these

numbers, an overall ranking was found for each option. The lower numbers suggest greater

preference.

The results of the dry trial showed, as predicted, a tendency toward content-based

locatives when describing manner of movement.

Paper with Sponge = 99

Paper = 83

Sponge = 72

Sponge to Paper = 56

Container = 182

Content = 128

In the wet trial, the results were less clear.

Sponge = 81

Paper = 79

Sponge to Paper = 72

Paper with Sponge = 68

Content = 153

Container = 147

The results in the wet sponge group were much closer in that there was still heavy use of content-

based locatives. This could lead us to believe that something within the action caused a change

in the content (sponge) to appear salient to participants in Group 2. However, it could also

simply weaken the original hypothesis. After all, there was no apparent flaw in the procedure

Schwaller 12

that might cause content and container locatives to occur with nearly the same frequency in this

situation.

One interesting side observation is that people tended to prefer the answer that gave the

most detail. Neither Paper nor Sponge was favored, despite being appropriate locatives. This

difference between simple and complex locative constructions was not studied in the

experiments previous to ours. The totals of the content and container locatives, however, still

show far less severe a dichotomy than was suggested by the findings of previous studies. Our

results were not definitive enough to be taken as reliable support for or against their theory.

There is need for a revised study with a stricter procedure in order to really clarify the findings.

Philosophy of Cognition

Philosophy of cognition studies the nature of the mind, consciousness, and mental

functions from a philosophical view, using rational thought to formulate possible truths. Several

of the courses that I took at Truman dealt with varying philosophies of the mind. We often used

philosophy and logic to postulate possible connections between mental events and the physical

brain.

ENG/LING 413 Advanced Linguistics

Each of the Advanced Linguistics courses I took (Semantics and Pragmatics, Phonetics

and Phonology, and Morphology) dealt with inference of linguistic rules from observation of

patterns in language. These rules are parts of the mental grammar, believed to contribute to the

cognitive processes of encoding and decoding language. Not only do these areas of formal

linguistics deal with language and cognition, but they also delve into the philosophy of cognition.

Each area of formal linguistics theorizes about the nature of cognition by supposing that a certain

Schwaller 13

aspect of the grammar may be the basest building block of language. For example, some

semanticists believe that semantic information is the first aspect of language that the brain

considers when encoding speech. In the study of morphology, one might consider that linguistic

information is categorized based on morphological paradigms.

J.L. Austins How to Do Things with Words is definitely the most strictly philosophical

text that I read in the Semantics and Pragmatics course. It does not go into detail about

computation or experiments but instead focuses mainly on philosophical argument. Austin was,

in fact, a philosopher of language, not a linguist. In How to Do Things with Words, Austin

contradicts the previously established assumption that language can be completely broken down

into a truth-value system. He argues that many sentences can be deemed neither true nor false,

as they are not statements of possible truths. Austin spends much of the lecture defining and

explaining performative utterances. I will not go into detail about the performative, but it is

worth mentioning because it has inspired much further research in the field of pragmatics.

Austins work in philosophy of language has inspired generations since within the realm of

philosophical linguistics, and linguists have expanded and his theories through computational

and psychological methods as well.

PHRE 342 Symbolic Logic

Another area that contributes to the philosophy of cognition is logic, the study of

reasoning. In part, it seeks to clarify and explain the processes by which the human mind solves

problems. This field utilizes a simple language in order to evaluate statements and determine

truth or fallacy. Logic is, in its methodology, extremely computational. However, its ultimate

goal is to deduce a true philosophy of the mind by determining the formulas humans use for

critical thinking. PHRE 342 or Symbolic Logic is examines the formal deductive systems

Schwaller 14

underlying mathematics and, presumably, thought. In this course, we studied sentential logic,

predicate logic, the logic of relations, the algebra of sets, and modal logic. The advanced forms

of mathematical logic studied also served to describe newer philosophies of language and

cognition. Rather than simply positing binary truth values, these forms of logic took into account

such concepts as necessity and possibility. Therefore, they are likely more accurate as

representations of not only math, but language as well. If we assume that language mirrors

thought, and surely the logic of semantics mirrors the logic of cognition, then it is fair to say that

symbolic logic comes as close to describing our many complex cognitive processes as any

previously existing logic has.

Psychology of cognition

Cognitive psychology explores internal mental processes from an approach concerned

mainly with the human psyche and behaviors. It is a theoretical method that employs quantitative

and scientific methodologies in order to create information processing models for higher-level

mental functions.

PSYCH 331 Cognitive Psychology

Cognitive Psychology, as a Truman course, examines the current knowns and unknowns

of human cognition, with particular attention to complex cognitive tasks. We spent time studying

human information processing theories, as well as other types of research and theory. Particular

emphasis was given to the connectionist approach to human cognition. We primarily discussed

the complex cognitive tasks that are unique to the human mind, and we were encouraged to come

up with their own theories on such processes as pattern recognition, attention, memory, sensation

and perception, language processing, problem solving, and decision making.

Schwaller 15

PSYCH 370 Human Sensation and Perception

An important topic in cognitive psychology is the organization of information within the

brain. Both storage and processing are believed to involve a combination of localization and

lateralization. When human perception makes a mistake, the mistake can inform us of a possible

overlap in processing pathways. For the Sensation and Perception course I studied the link

between spicy taste sensations and its connection to false perception of hot or burning tactile

sensations, as well as the similar cooling felt in connection with menthol. In my research, I

found that capsaicin, a chemical found in chili peppers, is considered responsible for the

inaccurate sensation of burning heat that is found alongside the subjective taste description of

spicy. Similarly, menthol creates a false feeling of extremely low temperature. For both

substances, the occurrence of perceived temperature change can occur anywhere on the skin but

are particularly intense on the tongue.

I considered multiple theories about where in the brains perceptual pathways an overlap

between taste and pain characteristics might occur. Similarities in taste and pain can be seen in

that they involve some of the same areas of the brain. The thalamus and the insula region of the

cortex are involved in both of these perceptual processes. Therefore, information of both types

could collide at either the subcortical or cortical level. However, this would suggest a much

greater level of synesthesia in most or all of perception, due to the fact that some of these areas

are used for filtering or processing many types of information. Since this does not occur, it would

be more likely that an answer lies either within the chemical makeup of the taste stimuli or in the

surface aspects of tongue regions and their receptive fields.

I performed research to evaluate the effects of capsaicin and menthol on subjects

perception, using a psychophysical approach. These tests involved the separate application of

Schwaller 16

substances containing each of these chemicals to different regions of the tongue, in order to also

determine which region or taste buds were most sensitive to the chemicals. Participants were

asked to describe their taste and cutaneous reactions to the stimuli. In a separate test, I applied

pressure with a toothpick to the separate regions of the tongue. This served the purpose of

determining whether any region of the tongue has more nocireceptors receptors located all over

the skin that are activated by pressure, extreme temperature, or burning chemicals to send a pain

signal to the brain than any other region.

The results showed that the middle region of the tongue was less susceptible to both taste

and temperature sensations. This region is also devoid of taste buds. However, the pressure test

showed that all regions reacted at approximately the same level when given a pressure stimulus.

For this reason, I believe that the regions have a similar number of nocireceptors. However, our

minds so strongly link the particular taste sensations with temperature or pain sensations that it is

probably inpossible to judge each accurately. In a way, taste buds are a source of temperature-

related pain reactions, because the sensation of spicy brings forth the memory of burning heat.

The overlap between these different kinds of sensations probably occurs higher up in the

cognitive pathways. Both pain signals and taste signals pass through the thalamus. It is possible

that the perceptual error happens here. These signals are also sent to the insula, in the cortex,

which is another possible site for the overlap. However, these areas receive many sorts of

perceptual information and usually manage to sort it accordingly. In addition, these explanations

ignore the dilemma of why only certain chemicals cause the taste/pain perceptual effect.

No clear and certain explanation has been found by this or more professional research.

However, this topic is growing in popularity. The perceptual phenomenon caused multimodal

response to the pungent chemicals capsaicin and menthol is similar to the experience of

Schwaller 17

synesthesia. Both events seem to have great potential to inform cognitive scientists on the

sensation and perception pathways in the brain, which may be both localized and lateralized

according to mode, with some occasional crossing.

Internship Experience in Cognitive Science

ENG 451 Internship for English (Autism Research)

In the spring of 2009, I took part in a research internship, along with a few other students,

under Dr. Mary Shapiro. Our research focused on Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD). Dr.

Shapiros long-term goal for the project was to develop new materials and approaches for people

with ASD to develop interactive skills. In particular, she noticed that most existing literature

taught only basic, fundamental language skills. Yet, as its name suggests, ASD covers a

spectrum of disorders, indicating various levels of cognitive, linguistic, and social potential.

People toward one end of the spectrum often show high rates of success in existing intervention.

This seems to imply that such individuals might benefit from further, more advanced instruction.

Our purpose was to determine the possible merit of developing such a program of speech and

language instruction, aimed at adolescents and adults who have completed existing programs

successfully.

After discussing the goals of the project, we began our research with an extensive

literature review. We studied every resource that was available to us in order to find out what

skills were already being taught. Special attention was paid to subtle aspects of speech, including

paralinguistic behaviors, like active listening cues (minimal responses, nodding). Also an area of

focus was discussion of advanced linguistic strategies, ranging from turn-taking and topic

maintenance to explanations of complex sociolinguistic phenomena. We found that many

Schwaller 18

materials addressed paralinguistic actions, often as part of a larger aim to educate children in

performing specific speech acts. The speech acts addressed were quite numerous, and they were

often taught through scripts or simple picture stories. We did not find, however, any curricula

that explored sociolinguistic topics in great depth. The literature review revealed a lack of

educational resources on dialect, register, and many other related topics.

Once we had found these subjects to be missing from existing ASD programs, we sought

to determine what merit such programs might have. The first step in this was to see how high-

functioning adults with ASD handled the difficult facets of spoken language in social situations.

We transcribed the speech of a few men at an Autism support group meeting, quantitatively

analyzing various linguistic phenomena that we observed. For a control, we chose a social group

consisting of neurotypical men and performed the same analysis on their transcribed speech. Our

data showed significantly higher rates of phonological simplification among the neurotypical

speakers than among those with ASD. Such simplification is associated with casual speech

registers and nonstandard dialects. Neurotypical adults often code-switch between formal and

informal registers, depending on context. In the ASD group, avoidance of nonstandard variation

may be the result of a lapse in language instruction. Code-switching behaviors are not formally

taught, so the adults with ASD may not have acquired this skill. Similarly, we found slightly

more pragmatic wordplay in the control group than in the ASD group. As suspected, the control

group showed greater understanding of appropriateness, non-literal or indirect meaning, context,

accommodation, and other interactional influences. Even so, the adults in the ASD group applied

advanced pragmatic concepts and displayed comprehension beyond what is normally expected of

people with ASD. Overall, this corpus study clarified an existing disparity between the advanced

linguistic skills of neurotypical adults and those with ASD.

Schwaller 19

The interns involvement in this project culminated with the design and implementation

of a survey to gauge audience reactions to formal versus informal register. We also aimed to

measure how their judgments might be affected by knowledge of a speaker having Autism. The

research group produced two versions of a video for participants to view. In each of these, an

actor played Joe, a student who is working on his storytelling and interaction skills. He first tells

a story as a monologue, in which he reports the players conversation. Next, he discusses movies

with a friend. In the first version, Joe speaks in a moderately formal register, avoiding

nonstandard or slang words. The second version differs only in this respect. During his

monologue, Joe uses be like and be all to report conversation (i.e., I was like... and He was

all...). In the dialogue, he uses the words awesome and sucks to express his approval and

disapproval of various things.

For the survey, undergraduate students were allowed to participate. They were separated

into four groups. Groups 1 and 3 viewed the version of the video in which Joe used only standard

vocabulary. Groups 2 and 4 viewed the recording featuring be like/be all and awesome/sucks.

They were all given the same set of questions, except that groups 3 and 4 were additionally told

that Joe had ASD. Participants in these two groups were also asked to rate their level of

experience with ASD. The ultimate configuration of variables was as such: Group 1 = standard

language with no mention of ASD, Group 2 = nonstandard language with no mention of ASD,

Group 3 = standard language with mention of ASD, and Group 4 = nonstandard language with

mention of ASD. Their questionnaires asked respondents to rate Joes performance in a number

of areas, using a scale of 1 to 10. These included friendliness, intelligence, confidence, and

honesty. Based on our knowledge of similar studies, we predicted that respondents in the

nonstandard language groups would give higher ratings for friendliness and honesty. This was

Schwaller 20

not the case. In responses to the monologue portion, nonstandard language correlated with lower

scores on some questions and had no significant effect on others. Even with regard to

friendliness, the slang words did not prove advantageous. The highest ratings came from group 3,

revealing positive reactions to the ASD label in combination with standard language usage.

Questions regarding the dialogue portion resulted in different trends. The nonstandard versions

scored higher than the standard versions here. An ASD label corresponded to better scores again,

with highest ratings in group 4, showing ASD label and nonstandard language to be the most

positively received combination. Interestingly, when asked how much their own opinions

matched Joes, group 4 showed the most agreement. Answers to the dialogue portion revealed

positive correlations between ASD label and response, as well as between nonstandard language

and response. These trends may reflect feelings of compassion toward disability and solidarity

among speakers with common nonstandard variation (in this case, the nonstandard language

examples are common within the respondents age group). Taken altogether, the survey results

are inconclusive. We can cite one conclusive trend - positive reactions to an ASD label - but

hearer reaction to our nonstandard stimuli needs to be retested.

For the Cognitive Science minor, I have tried to educate myself in a broad range of

subtopics while remaining focused on the essential concepts in the study of cognition. My

courses were from three areas of the cognitive science minor, but as interdisciplinarity suggests,

they frequently dealt with more than one area. My internship experience gave me the opportunity

to apply the theories and concepts I had learned to research in a field that is also socially

important. In the end, I am quite satisfied with the knowledge and critical thinking skills that I

have developed while pursuing this minor.

Schwaller 21

Works Referenced

Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1975. Print.

Field, John. Psycholinguistics: a Resource Book for Students. London: Routledge, 2003. Print.

Fogassi, L., P. Ferrari, B. Gesierich, S. Rozzi, F. Chersi, and G. Rizzolatti. "Parietal Lobe: From

Action Organization to Intention Understanding." Science 308.5722 (2005): 662-67.

Academic Search Elite. Web. 2 Apr. 2007.

Hawkins, Jeff, and Sandra Blakeslee. On Intelligence. New York: Times, 2004. Print.

Pulvermller, F., O. Hauk, V. Nikulin, and R. Ilmoniemi. "Functional Links between Motor and

Language Systems." European Journal of Neuroscience 21.3 (2005): 793-97. Academic

Search Elite. Web. 23 Apr. 2007.